R GANESH MUDALI Vs. MURUGESA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No.8 of 1985 on the file of Court of III Additional District Munsif, Chittor, filed this second appeal. I need not refer to entire garnet of controversy in the suit. Parties are referred as arrayed in the suit in O.S. No.8 of 1985. He filed O.S. No.8 of 1985 for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties from the 1st defendant by contending that he purchased the properties from the 2nd defendant under registered sale deed Ex.Al dated 29-3-1984 for a consideration of Rs.21,000/-. Subsequently, since the boundaries were not properly specified in Ex.Al, a rectification deed-Ex.A2 was also executed on 15-10-1984. When the plaintiff tried to get the land ploughed the 1st defendant forcibly entered into the lands, unyoked the bulls, took possession of the lands and started cultivating in the said lands. On that day, a legal notice Ex.A4 dated 22-11-1984, was issued to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant in his reply notice-Ex.A3 dated 3-12-1984 contended that the 2nd defendant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of three items of the suit schedule properties under Ex.B2 dated 28-3-1984 and the sale deed was brought into existence in collusion with the 2nd defendant to defeat his claims. In the reply notice the 1st defendant stated that the 2nd defendant has no right whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the suit schedule properties belongs to him, and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of Items Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties, to pay mesne profits from 10-4-1984, costs and for other orders. The 1st defendant filed his written statement on the same lines as stated in his reply notice-Ex.A5 dated 3-12-1984. He also filed O.S. No.861 of 1984 for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff in O.S. No.8 of 1985 from interfering with the possession over the properties. Likewise he also filed O.S. No.947 of 1984 seeking the relief of specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale-Ex.B2. All these three suits were clubbed together and evidence was recorded in O.S. No.8 of 1985.

(2.) On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues: O.S. No.8 of 1985:

(3.) The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.I one C. Ramu and one Krishnaswamy were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Al to A6 i.e., Ex-A1 registered sale deed dated 29-3-1984 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 rectification deed dated 15-10-1984 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff and notices that were exchanged between the parties. The 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.I and 1st defendant got himself examined as D.W.2 and one Krishnan and one Natesa Mudali alleged to be the attestors of agreement of sale-Ex. B2 dated 28-3-1984 were examined as D.Ws.3 and 4 and marked Exs.B 1 to B4 documents. From the Court side, Exs.Cl to C3 documents were marked.